Let's talk about fat.

[seeingeyes]

I'm fat. My husband's fat. We love, adore, and desire each other.

Awesome.

/thread

Only if you two are the only married couple here.

 

[katautumn]

I'm curious then, since I don't know a lot about this kind of stuff, wouldn't the juice be technically better, since it has "natural" sugar vs. the soda that has not only chemicals that can damage our system, but added sugar?

Freshly squeezed orange juice is better than bottled. Bottled OJ is little more than fruit flavored sugar water, even the "good" brands. Most of those companies are owned by Coca-Cola and Pepsi. Still, even with juicing fruits you have to be careful. Fructose is fructose and for people sensitive to beverages with a high glycemic index, juicing fruits may not be a safer alternative to sodas. Juicing fruits can also inhibit weight loss. I do Weight Watchers and fruit, in its whole form, doesn't count against your daily Points target, but juiced fruits do, even ones that are just the pure fruit put through a home juicer.

 

[akmom]

What if you eat the rind afterward?

 

[bhsmte]

Thanks for your post - but the last is incorrect. If by tissue you refer to "muscle tissue", it is incorrect. Unsaturated fats and carbohydrates are the human body's primary sources of energy. It is only a deficit of these that will force the body to start breaking down stored (saturated) fat. In the absence of all of these - it is then that it starts to break down muscle tissue.

It's a hierarchy of needs, basically. One needs to be able to use their muscles (to walk, type whatever - just move) before they need the stored body fat. If muscle tissue was one of the first things to go, a great many of us would be doomed to be...well...immovable blobs, lol - " I lost my muscle and I can't get up!"

I disagree and I will explain why.

How often have you hear someone say; I lost 8 pound in one week?

So, where do you think that 8 pounds came from? Many assume it was all fat loss and they are tickled pink. But, since the fuel stores in 8 pounds of fat is; 28,000 calories, the fuel capable of the average person walking 240 miles, it is next to impossible to tap the energy in only fat in that period of time and our bodies NEVER burn 100% fat at any time to begin with. The type of weight the person who dropped 8 pounds in a week, will depend on the following; their fitness level, their dietary status and their metabolic rate. If this person had been accustomed to "yo yo dieting", the vast majority of the weight loss was not from fat, but from mostly water and some lean tissue, because the drastic changes in dieting (period of very low caloric intake) has caused certain adaptations in their body. Lean tissue is 70% fluid by weight and fat tissue has very little fluid as a percentage of it's weight. This is why it is EASY to lose weight quickly (water is heavy), but not possible to lose fat quickly.

In your hierarchy of needs, the hierarchy will be determined by what stress has been placed on the body and lets look at two examples on different ends of the spectrum:

1. A long distance runner who runs 50 miles per week

This person, will have adaptations that have taken place, that have caused their body, to be extremely efficient at storing energy (glycogen) in the muscles to be used as fuel during the rigorous daily runs. When they consume food (likely lots of carbs) those food stuffs are broken down and first stored as glycogen, because it is a high priority for that individual. The runner will then tend to, burn a much higher percentage of fat during rest, then the sedentary person, so sugars, can be retained for their runs, to be used as fuel. Ever heard of a long distance runner "hitting the wall"? This is caused by the body being depleted of glycogen stores during a very long run and either the activity will need to stop, or the pace of the activity, will have to slow down to the point, where the body can tap other energy stores, which do not burn as readily as sugar does, during higher intensity training.

2. The sedentary person who has gone through frequent fad diets, where drastically reduced caloric intake has taken place.

This person's body, has adapted very differently from the runners, because the stressed placed upon it, are quite different. Remember, the number one priority for the body is always; SURVIVAL and whenever heavily reduced caloric intake takes place, the survival mechanisms start to kick in; lower basal metabolic rate, so fewer calories are needed. What is the best way to lower basal metabolic rate? Slow everything down and rid the body of unnecessary lean tissue (mostly muscle) because muscle require calories to maintain. Since the person is sedentary, the muscles have not been stressed and therefore will not be maintained and will be broken down to be used as fuel, while fat stores are kept as a reserve for a long term insurance policy. This person has likely gone through periods of losing a lot of weight in short periods and then gaining it all back plus more when a normal diet resumes. The reason, when a normal diet resumes, even though they are not consuming more calories then before, their metabolism is now slower and the shock of drastic reduced episodes in the past, has caused the body to adapt and store as much fat as possible, to assure protection from the next bout of reduced caloric intake. This is why some wrestlers, who when they become less active, tend to gain a lot of fat, because they went through period of several days, starving themselves to make weight and their bodies adapted to this, by storing more fat, when calories are available to do so.

And without question, glucose is your bodies primary fuel source. It is the brains favored fuel source and the brain does not function well when adequate amounts of glucose are not present. Fat is also burned and again, the amount of fat burned, is very much depended on your fitness level and dietary status. FAT BURNS IN THE FLAME OF CARBOHYDRATES, and this is why, low carb diets, are only best, for sedentary people, as active fit people, would not be able to maintain their activity levels, with a low carb diet, they would hit the "wall".

 

[bhsmte]

My post was specifically about the claim that someone could eat 900 calories a day and gain weight. Have you ever heard of such a case?

If a person has gone the stresses of severely reduced caloric intake for long enough or enough episodes, yes, a person could store fat at a very low caloric intake level.

Our bodies have an incredible ability to survive when certain stresses are placed upon it and storing fat, is one of it's survival mechanisms from being starved.

 

[hitops]

When talking about body fat and appearance, this thread reinforces the contemporary nonsense that gaining weight is expected and normal, and there's not much you can do about it.

Wrong. Becoming a whale is normal in today's western (specifically, American) culture. It is unique to the last 50 years. Eating food is tasty, and doing stuff is hard, and that's pretty much all there is too it.

There's an extremely simple way to test this theory. Look at people in other countries without tons of uber-calorie food and SUV's everywhere. Or better yet, look at footage from American before 1950. Almost nobody was heavy. The idea that it's inevitable is complete nonsense and just a way to dismiss abuse of the physical body God has given you.

Thyroid and other issues account for almost nobody who is heavy. The fact that this would even be raised as a real argument, shows how far we are willing to go to justify self-abuse and the immediate gratification of tasty things and being sedentary.

 

[katautumn]

What if you eat the rind afterward?

You need the fibrous pulp, which juicers extract. The reason juicing is so popular, is because all of the nutrients are readily absorbed into the system. In fact, most juicing gurus will tell you to be extra cautious when juicing only fruits. It's best for juices to be mostly veggies and simply sweetened with fruits.

 

[ValleyGal]

Or better yet, look at footage from American before 1950. Almost nobody was heavy.

How much of the food back then was loaded with the crap we put into it today, like preservatives, sodium, sugars of various kinds, dyes, fats, sauces, etc. Combine a healthier availability of foods with a better economy (it's cheaper to eat weiners and Krap Dinner than it is to eat a healthy, organic flavourful diet), and much more active jobs and playgrounds, and yes, you have fewer heavy people. But your dreams of the 1950's ideal does not apply today. There are far more reasons for the obesity epidemic than meets the eye, and it includes not only what we put into our bodies and how they react to what we put into them, but also includes the brainwashing of media and economy.

 

[Nienna_Lady_of_Tears]

As a corollary, it seems to be expected that someone will gain a significant amount of weight after babies or after x number of years. But why?

There really is no physical reason that a 5'6" 150lb woman must become a 5'6" 190lb woman after her children are born or after she hits a certain age. Just like there's no physical reason that a man who gets a desk job has to gain 50 lbs.

There are certainly medical conditions that contribute directly to weight gain, and those should be treated as such. But that is rather rare even though every other person carrying an extra hundred pounds blames their thyroid or metabolism even though they haven't been diagnosed as such.

Have we become so accustomed to fat gain that we think it is perfectly normal for an adult to keep growing and growing and growing?

I'd do anything to get down to 150 pounds. Unfortunately, my lean body mass alone weighs that much, and I'm only 5'4".

 

[Nienna_Lady_of_Tears]

How much of the food back then was loaded with the crap we put into it today, like preservatives, sodium, sugars of various kinds, dyes, fats, sauces, etc. Combine a healthier availability of foods with a better economy (it's cheaper to eat weiners and Krap Dinner than it is to eat a healthy, organic flavourful diet), and much more active jobs and playgrounds, and yes, you have fewer heavy people. But your dreams of the 1950's ideal does not apply today. There are far more reasons for the obesity epidemic than meets the eye, and it includes not only what we put into our bodies and how they react to what we put into them, but also includes the brainwashing of media and economy.

Also, the average woman has grown 4 inches in height since the fifties. If you take ungirdled measurements, the average woman still has the same proportions as to the 50's woman.

 

[akmom]

I used to be a runner. So did my husband. We ran together a lot before kids. I still like to run, though I get winded faster than I used to. I know that would stop if I actually went for a run regularly. But I have three kids. Seriously, how am I going to do that?? My kids can't keep up with me.

When I lost my weight, I did a rigorous training program at a gym in the evenings when my husband got off work. Between commuting and working out, it was two hours away from my family every other day, and I'd be home in time to put the kids to bed. That is not a sacrifice I'm willing to make in the long-term.

I've tried running through my neighborhood, but I just get chased by dogs, some of which get nippy at my heels, and all of which follow me around with their obnoxious barking. I've talked to their owners, but they all assume it's a one-time request and in the end it's just not worth it. I've done video aerobics, which are actually pretty good workouts, but my kids are always hanging off me or interrupting me, so it's not much of a good workout.

Basically, I was a fit runner when my husband married me and now I'm not. If my husband needs me to be a fit runner to be attractive (which he doesn't, thankfully) then we would have a problem, because that's not really an option for me. I can't go for a long run AND watch the children which are my responsibility now. That's just me. Other people experience different kinds of changing circumstances that make weight control a challenge. Yeah, it's technically in one's control, but not necessarily compatible with other factors in their lives. So to refer back to the OP, one is only really obligated to maintain their pre-marriage figure if both parties are willing to make the sacrifices to prioritize fitness. Otherwise, you have to be content with a porker! After all, a woman who weighs 100 pounds while running five miles a day cannot necessarily weigh 100 pounds if she is expected to sit at home with babies for five years straight. Even if she starves herself.

 

[bhsmte]

When talking about body fat and appearance, this thread reinforces the contemporary nonsense that gaining weight is expected and normal, and there's not much you can do about it.

Wrong. Becoming a whale is normal in today's western (specifically, American) culture. It is unique to the last 50 years. Eating food is tasty, and doing stuff is hard, and that's pretty much all there is too it.

There's an extremely simple way to test this theory. Look at people in other countries without tons of uber-calorie food and SUV's everywhere. Or better yet, look at footage from American before 1950. Almost nobody was heavy. The idea that it's inevitable is complete nonsense and just a way to dismiss abuse of the physical body God has given you.

Thyroid and other issues account for almost nobody who is heavy. The fact that this would even be raised as a real argument, shows how far we are willing to go to justify self-abuse and the immediate gratification of tasty things and being sedentary.

You are correct. Humans were meant to be active plain and simple. Also, you are right in saying very few cases of obesity are related to hormone issues and things out of a person's control.

If anyone has been to Europe and visited cities were people ride bikes and or walk with regularity, you rarely see a person who is obese and they eat well.

 

[mkgal1]

Actually, according to stats, both the U.S. and the U.K were basically weight-stable until about the late 70s.

http://win.niddk.nih.gov/publications/PDFs/stat904z.pdf (page 4)

It seems so obvious that the starting point for understanding the obesity epidemic should be – what changed in the late 1970’s/early 1980’s? Was there one thing that happened that could explain the sudden and dramatic increase in obesity?

Yes there was. In 1977 the USA changed its public health diet advice. In 1983 the UK followed suit. A more accurate description would be that we did a complete U-turn in our diet advice from “Farinaceous and vegetable foods are fattening, and saccharine matters are especially so” to “base your meals on starchy foods”. Obesity has increased up to ten fold since – coincidence or cause?

Throughout the tens of thousands of years before the 1966 data, there is no record of an obesity problem, let alone an epidemic. Suddenly, in evolutionary terms, and dramatically, in amounts, obesity levels increased from 2-3% in the 1970’s to 25% today. Two thirds of UK citizens are now overweight or obese.

The USA started from a slightly higher base and displayed a virtually identical trend, with 70% of Americans currently overweight or obese:~The Obesity Epidemic | Introduction

 

[Hetta]

Farinaceous = containing starch. I had never seen that word before!

"Base your meals on starchy foods"

I have spent quite a lot of time in Europe and came from there originally. Some countries are different to others, but yes, in many of these countries, people do not solely rely on cars to get from A to B. They more frequently use public transport (which is clean and reliable) so they walk to the train or the bus and walk from the train or bus to their place of work, or wherever else they were going. A lot more people get around on bikes, using dedicated bike lanes, which is not the norm here.

In countries where obesity is very low, the people exist on rice as the staple of their diet, and rarely eat meat, just small amounts of fish, and also vegetables. And yet obesity is now becoming a problem even in China. Did McDonalds open up franchises in China lately?

 

[Inkachu]

When talking about body fat and appearance, this thread reinforces the contemporary nonsense that gaining weight is expected and normal, and there's not much you can do about it.

The only weight gain that I've seen mentioned as "normal" in this thread is what's typically seen (even a generation or two ago) as people age and metabolisms and hormones go through their normal changes. NO one (that I've read) has said that gaining 100 lbs or exploding into morbid obesity is normal. What IS normal is gaining a handful of pounds, losing some muscle mass, getting a bit "flabby" as you get into your golden years, etc. That's nothing to freak out over or panic about. It's utterly, absolutely normal and OK. If someone wants to fight it with diet and exercise, more power to them. If someone else doesn't want to fight it, they aren't lazy or self destructive, they're just a normal person going through the normal changes of aging. And no one here has said that there's "not much you can do" about weight gain. A few people have mentioned medical conditions that can cause weight gain and make it very hard to lose the weight, but nobody has said "you're going to get very fat when you get old, and there's nothing you can do".

 

[Inkachu]

In countries where obesity is very low, the people exist on rice as the staple of their diet, and rarely eat meat, just small amounts of fish, and also vegetables. And yet obesity is now becoming a problem even in China. Did McDonalds open up franchises in China lately?

It's fascinating that you mention this, because I literally just a few days ago, watched a documentary about this. And YES, China has recently (within the last 25 years) allowed fast food franchises to open up. And the numbers of obese people are rapidly growing as a result.

 

[Niffer]

I bet if fast-food franchises became banned (which the never would) but if somehow they did, I would bet so much money we'd see MUCH less obesity.

 

[ValleyGal]

It's fascinating that you mention this, because I literally just a few days ago, watched a documentary about this. And YES, China has recently (within the last 25 years) allowed fast food franchises to open up. And the numbers of obese people are rapidly growing as a result.

I saw this too. They also said being heavy is a sign of middle class there, while here it is more a sign of lower-income - after all, when my son was young, it was far cheaper for me to take him to McDonalds to eat than it was to make a nutritious meal at home for him.

 

[ValleyGal]

This was on my newsfeed today.
https://ca.shine.yahoo.com/video/pl...t/change-way-eat-mcdonald-231808308.html?vp=1

The McDonald's symbol is more universally recognized than the Christian cross.

McDonald's serves 1% of the world's population every day - more than 70 million people; that's more than the population of Thailand.

 

[mkgal1]

I think fast food is a big part of it....but I also think there are other factors as well. Changes in our wheat industry began, I believe, around the time that would affect those changes in the 70s. It was 1970 when the cover of Time magazine featured Dr. Borlaug with his "new wheat".

Published on Nov 21, 2012
The wheat of today is not the wheat of our mothers or grandmothers. Modern wheat is the product of genetic manipulations that have transformed its properties. Modern wheat is now a 2-foot tall, high-yield semi-dwarf strain, different in both appearance and multiple biochemical features from traditional wheat. Introduction of this new strain of wheat was associated with the appearance of a long list of health problems, along with weight gain and diabetes.

According to Dr. Davis, saying goodbye to all things wheat provides outsized and unexpected health benefits, from weight loss, to relief from acid reflux and bowel urgency, to reversal of diabetes, migraine headaches, and learning disabilities in children.

Dr. William Davis is author of the #1 New york Times bestselling book, Wheat Belly: Lose the wheat, lose the weight and find your path back to health (Rodale, 2011), now debuting internationally in over ten foreign languages. Wheat belly has helped spark a nationwide reconsideration of the conventional advice to "eat more healthy whole grains."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbBURnqYVzw